Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Bruce Lages

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bruce Lages

  1. The disgruntled member cannot just 'motion to revote' at the same meeting. Assuming the motion was defeated when first brought up, it could be brought up again at the same meeting by moving to reconsider the motion, but there are specific requirements for the motion to reconsider, including having voted on the prevailing side when the motion was first voted on (see RONR, p.315-332 for the details of this motion). On the off chance that the disgruntled member is unhappy because the motion was adopted, he could also move to rescind the motion, which, if made at the same meeting, would requi
  2. I think it does make a difference. Regarding length of term for filling vacancies - at least for the presidency - RONR does say that "If the bylaws are silent as to the method of filling a vacancy in the specific case of the presidency, the vice president or first vice president automatically becomes president for the remainder of the term..." (p.575, l.9-13; my bold). Based on your statement above that your officers serve for a two year term and there is no odd or even year election format, it sounds like election of officers occurs for all offices at the same time. It would certainly make se
  3. Upon re-reading the original post and Mr. Kapur's response immediately above, I think I have a clearer picture of the situation now. Of the two positions not scheduled for election until 2022, the vice chairman's seat was already vacant at the time of this election and the secretary was elected to the new position of chair. Since your bylaws specify that vacancies are filled by the body which elects the offices, what you had was an election for two offices whose terms were expiring and also an election to fill two vacancies. This is the part that was not clear - at least to me - in the or
  4. This may be an aside, but can you explain why, given your first statement - "An organization has just held elections for all of its 4 officers. Each officer has a 4 year term of office, with staggered elections - chairman and treasurer were scheduled for 2020, vice chairman and secretary in 2022." - all four offices were elected at the same time? Why were the elections not staggered this time?
  5. In these circumstances the proper procedure would have to been to postpone the motion to the next meeting, or if those questions that needed resolution might take further review, to refer the motion to a committee charged with researching and providing recommendations to resolve those questions.
  6. It would come up as unfinished business at the next meeting of the same body, provided that meeting occurs within a quarterly time period. If the next meeting can not be held within that time period, the motion would 'fall to the ground', i.e., it would cease to exist and could just be made anew whenever possible. Why wasn't the motion put to a vote? The minutes should reflect exactly what happened - the motion was made by Mr or Ms ______ , but was not put to a vote.
  7. The accrediting - they call it licensing - seems to be the work of two gentlemen, one of which is Mr. Dunbar, who are affiliated in some (unknown to me from what I saw) way with the FFA - Future Farmers of America. Although they claim that their test material is based, in part, on RONR, it seems, from the individual questions posted thus far in the general forum, that that claim might be questionable.
  8. Yes, it certainly sounds like he was wrong. Voting should only begin after debate has been exhausted (i.e., no one is seeking the floor for further discussion) or the assembly has voted to cease debate. During debate it is possible to amend the pending motion - in your case since this was a motion to amend your constitution, any such amendments would have been very limited in scope - so what is actually put up for vote may be somewhat different than the motion as originally stated. It's kind of hard to start voting when you don't yet know the exact motion you're voting on.
  9. Possibly, if the motion was one that is not debatable and not amendable, but the chair should also make sure those conditions are known to the assembly before calling for the vote. Can you tell us more specifically the nature of the motion you're referring to?
  10. And I beiieve that the proper procedure, except possibly for a very small assembly such as a small board or committee, would be for the secretary to call the name of every member on the membership roll, not just those who are present, as suggested by RONR, 11th ed. p.421, ll.20-22.
  11. No, not unless they specified that only the right hand was to be used for voting. I was going to post what I hoped would be a somewhat facetious question as to whether suspend the rules would be required to vote using the left hand (or either hand) , but if the question actually came up, I think this is where unanimous consent earns its keep.
  12. According to RONR, all members can vote, unless that right has been suspended by disciplinary action. Any rules making the right to vote contingent on 'paid' status would have to be in your bylaws. If your advisors are members, they have the right to vote, unless the bylaws say otherwise, The president (presuming he is the presiding officer) and the parliamentarian have the right to vote if they are members, but should not unless the vote is by ballot. In the case of the president, if the vote is not by ballot, he votes whenever his vote will make a difference in the outcome (see FAQ 1).
  13. Guest Charles Smith - please post your question as a new topic using the black 'start new topic' box on the general discussion page.
  14. Perhaps, but remember that if by "current board" and "previous board" the OP means a board whose membership has changed in whole or in part, any unfinished business has fallen to the ground, and will need to be renewed (p. 488-489).
  15. If the understanding is that this is being done on behalf of the organization, then I would say yes, a motion is needed.
  16. RONR says on p. 469 that all main motions are to be included in the minutes, and says additionally on p. 470 that when a count has been ordered the number of votes on each side should be entered in the minutes. My understanding is that motions to amend a main motion are not typically recorded in the minutes, with the adoption of an amendment being stated as "the motion to ... was adopted after amendment". If motions to amend a main motion are voted using a counted vote, does this imply that the wording of the amendment, together with the number of votes on each side of the counted vote, should
  17. Good point. Thanks, Josh. Guest Ed Wirth, if you're still reading this, did the chair announce the result of the vote at the meeting, and if so, what was that result?
  18. According to RONR, the chair of the nominating committee's only job is to present the report of the committee, which should be a list of the nominees selected by the committee for each open position. Once that report is given, the nominating committee is discharged and has no further involvement in the election itself. The chair of the meeting presides over all aspects of the election, and should be the one answering any questions about election procedure, calling for nominations from the floor (unless your bylaws say otherwise), and appointing a tellers' committee to count the ballots, Note t
  19. Can you be more specific? What type of assistance or help are you referring to?
  20. If you follow the default method of voting described in RONR, the result will be based on the total number of votes cast. Abstentions are not votes, so your motion passed by a vote of 4-0. If members are "in doubt of the motion value", they can move to postpone the motion or refer the motion to a committee, or just vote no. So at this point the motion has been adopted. If enough members are unhappy with this, the motion can be amended or rescinded at the next meeting. This requires a 2/3 vote, a vote of the majority of the entire membership, or, if previous notice is given, a majority vote. No
  21. Whether the general membership has the ability to force the committee to recommend a bylaw change may well be outside what your bylaws prescribe, as Dr. Stackpole has suggested, or it may come down to a matter of bylaw interpretation by your organization. See pp. 588-591 of RONR, 11th ed. for some principles of bylaw interpretation. One option that could be available, as referenced by sMargaret, is, if the general membership selected the members of the committee, they can remove those members and select new ones who will follow the membership's directions.
  22. Yes, that would be a part of what is expected of the chair under the more formal procedure used in larger groups It might be a good idea to find out what the first group of members has against using the small board rules. In my experience, small boards get along just fine with these relaxed rules, which really do facilitate letting everyone - including the chair - participate fully. There are several other aspects of the small board rules, that haven't been mentioned here, that really do make it easier for boards to handle the day-to-day business of the organization in a more efficient manne
  23. There really is no contradiction. As you have read, in small groups of no more than about a dozen members, the small board relaxed rules may be used, and those rules allow the presiding officer to make motions and enter debate just as any other member( no seconds are necessary with these rules). So, does your group fit that size condition? Note though that even if your group can use the small board rules, it can still choose to use the more formal procedures for larger groups. In larger assemblies, the presiding officer, if a member of the group, does not lose the rights of all members to mak
  24. I guess I don't see how SDC 2( b ) relates to J.J.'s scenario. since it discusses reconsideration not being applicable to a negative vote on motions which would be out of order at the time reconsider is made, and there isn't a negative vote in this scenario. The reference to p. 321-322 also doesn't seem to fit since it discusses action that may preclude making of the motion to reconsider the vote on a previously rejected motion, and there is no previously rejected motion . What am I missing? Shmuel's post did. however, make me think about SDC 2(g), which indicates that reconsider can not be ap
  • Create New...